Mission Possible: Deception

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on —

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because —

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t.

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office —

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

New narrative and Talking Points from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth Minister. 🙂

Deny reality. Repeatedly. And by the way, we are at war with Oceania and always have been… (1984 reference).

Now, it’s Harry Reid’s turn: Reid: “Millionaire Job Creators Are Like Unicorns” … They “Don’t Exist

Reid: “The Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country, even those who make millions every year, shouldn’t contribute more to get our economy back on track. They call our plan, time after time, a tax on job creators, and I say so-called “job creators.” Because I say that, Mr. President, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring. For example, there have been many outlets, but I’ll concentrate on one. National Public Radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire job creators. A reporter reached out to the business groups and a tax lobby in the Republican Congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. Days ticked by with no luck. Many of our job creators are like unicorns, they’re impossible to find and don’t exist. That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent, are actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.”

Yeah, they might be Bill Gates (Microsoft), or the Late Steve Jobs (Apple). Or even JEFFREY IMHELT (Job Creation Czar) – Jeffrey Immelt’s net worth is $60 million dollars and annual salary of $22 million.

And, of course they don’t employ anyone. 🙂

The Orwellian smoke being blown up your ass is that that the millionaire aren’t “small business” people.

So, since millionaires aren’t “small business” job creators (they are BIG business job creators) it’s ok to tax the hell out of them!!!

Oh, and by the way the “millionaires” tax goes all the way down to $250,000 a year WHICH CAN BE A “SMALL BUSINESS” Job Creator. But we won’t talk about that because it interferes with our class warfare narrative.

So it’s all word games and misdirection and manipulation, as usual.

It’s meant to confuse you.

And you think, dear reader, you’re safe…

What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas.

Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn’t done enough to police infringement.” (The Hill)

But if Congress does pass these laws, it will be a testament to the enormous power and influence of two Democratic special interest groups—the Hollywood lobby, comprised of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and the trial lawyers.

If you’re wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank fame), now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People’s Republic of China:

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.”

And one thing Liberal really want to to do is make sure there’s no one to contradict their Big Brother vision of controlling everyone and everything.

But Dodd calls such alarms “exaggerated hyperbole.”

Just like unemployment that has been above 8% since February 2009 means the rate has dropped to 8.6% (which was a politically motivated number that didn’t count the massive number of people who just gave up!)

Remember that the unemployment rate is not “how many people don’t have jobs?”, but “how many people don’t have jobs and are actively looking for them”

Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That’s millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it’s not because they’ve become sick or old or infirm. It’s because they can’t find a job, and so they’ve stopped trying. (WP)

So the more people who give up entirely, the better the Unemployment rate looks.

Now that’s government in action! 🙂

And the Debt hasn’t gone up under Obama, that was the fault of George W. Bush, and they just haven’t had enough time to fix it yet. It’s been tougher than they thought (yeah spending $5 Trillion dollar in less than 3 years will do that).

These are all Democrat/Liberal Talking Points. they are all mean to deceive.

And deception is the only game in town these days.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Getting in Touch with your Inner Banana

I will explain the title in due course.  So bear with me. there’s a bit of a set up needed.

Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner:  US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.

He said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.

We are now declare The United States Not to be a Super Power and a World Leader, so piss off!

Yes, that’s the demoralizing sound of the White House spreading more malaise.

Welcome to Carter Malaise II: The Intentional Sequel.

In other words, don’t expect the engine that has been the driver for the world economy for over a century to keep up the pace.

This fits with President Obama’s conviction that the U.S. is no more extraordinary than any other country.

We’re nothing special. We are just another country of many. Nothing to see here, move along…

Everyone is equal and no one is better than anyone else.

“I believe we must each start by setting out plans for getting our national finances under control,” New UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was tossed out this week BY HIS OWN LABOR PARTY.

He was replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard, who became the story of the day by becoming Australia’s first woman prime minister.

It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.

Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.

When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.

Those firms form the backbone of Australia’s dynamic economy, accounting for half of its exports. As Rudd imagined that it was he who kept Australia out of financial crisis, the reality was it was private firms like these that created the value and jobs for Australians.

When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.

To pay for his own bloated government programs, Rudd claimed — as his union supporters did — that he only wanted companies to pay their “fair share.” Unions themselves added to the fantasy by claiming these taxes would create jobs. Rudd echoed that, absurdly claiming the tax would be good for the economy.

“It is important to pay emphasis on the independent modeling of Treasury who’s put all the factors together and projects this industry will grow by 6.5% over five to 10 years,” Rudd told incredulous mining executives from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Fortescue last May as stocks fell. “As a result of (this 40% tax) we will see a better and more dynamic mining industry in the future.” (IBD)

Beginning to sound familiar??

The Full on Socialist German State:

German leader Angela Merkel believes that the massive spending President Obama is advocating is not right for her country to undertake. Merkel, sounding and parroting the familiar refrain of Conservative Republicans, is a proponent, at this juncture, of curtailing spending and sees merit in the German engaging in more savings. President Obama on the hand wants the major economies like that of Germany (ranked number 4) to emulate the profligate spending him and the U.S. lawmakers – at least the Democrats – have contributed to the world money supply. President Obama also wants Germany to curtail its forays into exports and focus it fiscal policies on consumer spending so as to spur economic growth.

Chancellor Merkel may not be operating on her own accord concerning the fiscal policies that she is currently championing like any astute politician, Merkel may be listening to her people’s voice on this matter. Much of the German people did not support the bailout (110 billion Euros) provided for Greece and (750 billion for the European safety net).

//

This posture by the German people of disagreeing on their version of bailouts mirrors the angst felt by the Tea Partiers in America.

So the Socialists have had enough of full-on socialism, and what does Obama want?

Full on Socialism.

You have to wonder why European Socialists are worried about debt and spending and Obama is not.

Add in Timothy “We are no longer a Super Power” Geithner’s comments and you start to see where I’m going with this.

I hope. 🙂

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has added his voice to the growing discussion about the United States’ recession spending spree.  In a response to President Obama’s call for further international recession spending, Schäuble stated “governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand. Deficit spending cannot become a permanent state of affairs.”

As if there were any doubt about the United States’ spending addiction, Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl explains, “the annual federal budget deficit is projected to reach 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020—more than three times the historical average.”

This means that if the US wanted to balance the budget by 2020, one-third of all spending would need to be eliminated or taxes would need to increase by 50 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office has just released its assessment of the administration’s budget outlook. The numbers are shocking. Under the president’s policies the federal deficit will exceed $700bn (€520bn, £467bn) in every year over the next decade. The sea of red ink will more than double the national debt to more than $20,000bn. The upshot is that in 2020, the deficit is projected to be $1,200bn, of which more than $900bn is borrowing to pay interest on previous debt. It is a sorry state of affairs.

So Obama and The Democrats want Financial “reform”.

They want to punish Wall Street!  Those evil, corrupt Capitalist Bastards!

But just like the Health Care “reform” that was more about stealth tactics to eventually kill off the private industry and have you dependent on the government, this too is not about Finances and Wall Street and just another polarized Alinsky tactic.

The upshot: no downgrade in our status as a AAA  Credit nation until interest equals 14 per cent of revenues. (and when it is downgraded the cost of the 13+ Trillion dollar debt goes up!)

Let’s party ‘til 2014 because in the Obama administration budget, D-Day (Downgrade Day) is 2015 when the magic number reaches 14.8 per cent. Moreover, the plan is not merely to flirt with modest deterioration in creditworthiness. In 2020, the ratio reaches 20.1 per cent. The US is on track for a junk-bond bonanza.

Just after 2014 when all the Health Care taxes come into full force and by then private health plans will likely be near extinction.

Coincidence?

I think not.

It’s just another takeover, but in the 2000+ plus throw the frog in cold water and then boil him slowly to death kind of way these Democrats seem to prefer.

Hell, they don’t even READ their own damn bills!

And it’s brought to you by Barney Frank and the retiring Chris Dodd, the guys who created the Mortgage mess!!

So the fox is going to save the chickens in the chicken coop!

Some Highlights

The Power to Unwind:

The FDIC would have the authority to liquidate failing firms while the Treasury Department fronts the money to do so. There would also be a repayment plan so that taxpayers are guaranteed to get the money back (and where does the government get the money??? You’re looking at his computer!).

So if the government “deems” you failing, you get taken over and sold off.

Gee, that can’t be abused at all can it! 😦
Financial Stability Oversight Council:

The council would monitor systemic risk across the entire financial system and make recommendations to the Federal Reserve to alleviate that risk. The ten-member council would include the heads of the federal financial agencies.

Corporate America’s Sith Overload. What do you bet they will be political appointees?

Just like the Oil Spill Investigation commission that has a bunch of left wing environmentalists and not one Engineer or Oil Businessperson!

They would never use any of those Chicago tactics on them, now would they… 😦

The government also gets to decide what is a “financial” firm. Does GM, which makes loans, fall into that category? How about Wal-Mart, which issues its own credit cards?

In effect, this lets the government seize and dismantle the assets of almost any company — and then force others to pay for it.
Fannie/Freddie:

Republicans biggest beef with the whole bill is that it does nothing to address the problems, and sustainability, of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For instance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were in arguably at the heart of the financial crisis, and which have already cost U.S. taxpayers $146 billion (with hundreds of billions more on the way), aren’t addressed in this bill at all.

The major reason for the collapse in the first place gets ignored!

Wonder Why?

Oh, that’s right, it’s government owned, heavily in debt, and guaranteed to be bailed out! (by you of course!)

Just Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!

No problems there! 🙂

No Resolution Fund:

The House wanted to create a $150 billion fund to pay for any future bailouts. The fund would be paid for by the banks. This provision was gutted. Conferees agreed that this could only be created after a massive collapse. This is the fund that Republicans successfully painted as a permanent bailout fund when Democrats in the Senate tried to include a similar, but only $50 billion, fund.

And the Republicans were right. Can you say, slush fund!

Any bank that runs into trouble can still walk up to Uncle Sam’s borrowing window and, hand outstretched, ask for money. And if the bank is politically connected or very large, it will get it.

The bill also creates a new agency inside the Federal Reserve that will have extensive power over consumer lenders. Hold the applause, because likely new limits on checking account fees and interest on credit cards will mean less access to credit, not more.

So you have less credit available, you have new regulations and new taxes, an Oversight committe that can swoop in and shut you down, and Health care cost are going to skyrocket under ObamaCare.

Sounds like a great business climate to me. Sign me up. 🙂

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.

Because the Government is going to intentionally, “for your protection” get in the way of business even more now than before.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic recovery won’t be catching fire any time soon.

Businesses and governments are likely to reduce spending in the second half of the year. Consumers, who drive most economic growth, aren’t expected to take up the slack.

The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the first quarter, offering its third and final estimate for the period. It was slower than initially thought because consumers spent less and imports rose faster that previously calculated.

Economists anticipate even slower growth ahead as companies bring their stockpiles more in line with sales. Factory output has climbed this year. But it was driven more by businesses replenishing their warehouses after the recession and less by consumer demand.

“The economy is growing, but still at a disappointingly slow pace,” said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. Take away businesses restocking their inventories and “you still have a lukewarm recovery,” he said.

Other factors could hold back growth. Federal government stimulus spending is expected to fade. The European debt crisis could slow U.S. exports and world trade. And state and local governments are likely to rein in spending and raise taxes as they struggle to close budget gaps.

“This is still the weakest and longest economic recovery in U.S. postwar history,” said Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.

High unemployment and tight credit have kept consumers from ramping up their spending as in past recoveries. The housing industry has played a big role after previous recessions. But this time it is slumping and subtracting from economic growth.

Most economists expect the unemployment rate, currently at 9.7 percent, to remain above 9 percent through the end of the year.

The economy has grown for three consecutive quarters after shrinking for four straight during the recession — the longest contraction since World War II.

And Stimulus III is on the way. After all, the previous ones were a roaring success!! So let’s do it again! and again! and again!!

Another part of the bill, and one that’s gotten little attention, makes changes to the amount of capital banks must keep to back up their loans. Banks eventually will be forced to raise more capital, or to reduce their lending. It also gives the government oversight over the $600 trillion derivatives market, without telling us what the rules will be. That, no doubt, will be left to bureaucrats. (IBD)

And they do a bang up job of it, always.

Add in that the Government has taken over Banks, Car Companies,Insurance Companies, and now wants to micromanage the financial sector.

So they want to decide who lives and who dies (Health Care)

Who is employed, by who whom and how that company operates. And if they don’t like it, they will swoop in “for your own protection” and save you from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Unions, especially Government Unions get special perks, deals and exemptions.

They are actively trying to destroy the Oil Industry (the moratorium) so they can take that over because “it’s too big and too important fail”. But if we help it fail, that’s ok.

Medicare and Medicaid  and Social Security are bankrupt. Fannie and Freddie are a bottomless pit.

The Congress wants an Internet “kill switch” for cyber-terrorists (terrorists being Right-wingers according to Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano last year)

Taxes are going up in 2011 by large amounts.

New taxes from ObamaCare start in 2011.

Unemployment may permanently be around 10% some economist are saying if everything remains as is.

50% of the people don’t even pay taxes.

The only sector of jobs that’s growing is the Public, government sector.

They want “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” aka Amnesty. And will not settle for less.

They are going to sue Arizona for wanting to protect itself.

That’s the Government’s job! 🙂

And if you don’t like the fact that they aren’t and don’t care to, tough bovine fecal matter!

We are the Power. Not You!

So they want to control your Energy, you Job, your Boss, your security, your Medical Care, Your Health, your retirement, and your how you make money.

So what does this all mean?

It means we have a President who willfully and with ideological malice wants to downgrade America to not only  ‘just another country’ but a banana 2nd or third tier one to boot. Nothing special.

What our country needs today is an inspirational leader, one who gets what makes the U.S. unique and who’ll boldly lead the nation out of its slide toward despair as he invites the world to climb with us.

What we have is a Banana Republic Dictator Wannabe.

He wants to throw the American People (the frog) in the cold water and boil them to death slowly.

To take over your life completely.

He want’s to “know whose ass to kick”.

Yours.

So he’s in touch with his Inner Banana (Dictator that is!). 🙂

Familiarity Breeds

“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Financial Reform is done.

Sound familiar?

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.– House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties, 3/9/10

A brother of the Same Mother(f*kers!)

And having one of the architect of this the mess ‘fix’ it feels me with confidence, especially when he is not running for re-election.

********

Now for comedy you can’t make up:

Community activist Elena Herrada speaking on a panel discussion at the US Social Forum in Detroit, MI yesterday – compares the border patrol to the KKK. Herrada encouraged her audience to not sit next to border patrol officers in restaurants, asking, “Would you sit next to the Ku Klux Klan if they were sitting in a restaurant with a hood on over their head?” She continued, “There is no place for border patrol in our community, they have no good intentions. So when you see them refuse to sit with them, refuse to eat with them, pretend like they are the menace that they are.

Mind you, there is a foreign country just across the not-that-wide Detroit River, it’s Called CANADA!! so the only real Border Patrol she’s likely to see is at the Bridge going over to Windsor! 🙂

******

More Comedy:

From 620-WTMJ

MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.

Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography.  “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border,” West said during debate.


Her colleague, Joe Rice, quickly corrected her, “I just want to assure my colleague that Arizona does in fact share a border with the country of Mexico.”

WELCOME TO LIBERAL EDUCATION.

And, you have a foreign border just north of you too, it’s called CANADA!!

“I did get a passing grade in Geography in high school and in college and I do obviously know that Arizona is on the border,” West said in an interview after today’s meeting.

Oh Really? Are you sure about that?

Maybe they just “deemed” it.

The board tabled the measure, taking no action on it today.

The Video:

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html

*******

NOW IT’S THE STATE’S TURN:

Dozens of California lawmakers are pushing to make their state the first in the nation to impose an across-the-board boycott on Arizona over its immigration law — though the state’s largest city just voted to selectively scale back its boycott after local lawmakers realized it could backfire.

The Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled a resolution that would impose several restrictions against Arizona. The measure calls for California to issue a travel advisory on visits to its eastern neighbor, halt state investment there and urge Major League Baseball to reconsider letting the state host the 2011 All-Star Game.

Though dozens of cities and organizations have voiced their opposition to Arizona’s law by instituting bans on employee travel, canceling conventions in the state and threatening to pull contracts, California would be the first state to do so.

Sen. Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the proposal, said the Arizona law “undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties.”

He said it poses a “special threat to people of color” who live and travel through Arizona.

Though Arizona officials argue that the boycotts do little to change policy and only hurt businesses and workers in the state, proponents of the policies say they passed them out of concern over racial profiling.

However, the Los Angeles City Council — one of the cities leading the charge against Arizona — just backed off part of its boycott because it didn’t want to cut ties with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections and generated $6 million for the city last year.

The metropolis had previously banned most city travel to Arizona, as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. That kind of policy has since been replicated by other city governments.

But council members decided to make an exception on Wednesday, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale.

“The boycott never intended to impede public safety,” Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon said during a meeting Wednesday.

Just mature, rational, logical thinking! 🙂

*******

NOW IT’S THE FEDS TURN

Two federal agencies have denied U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ charge they are boycotting Arizona because of SB 1070. The congresswoman earlier this week chastised the Border Patrol and the Department of Education for canceling scheduled events.

Border Patrol officials say they did not cancel any Arizona events, according to a statement issued by the agency’s public-affairs office in Washington, D.C.

The Border Patrol’s parent agency “has not canceled any conferences in Arizona. We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case,” the statement says.

The Education Department says it moved a joint event with Mexican and Canadian attendees at the request of the Mexicans, The Associated Press reported. However, the Education Department said it still plans to hold other upcoming conferences in Arizona.

Giffords’ office stands by its news release, said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords’ spokesman. “Meetings were scheduled, meetings were canceled and the reason was SB 1070,” he said.

Giffords is an Arizona Democrat opposed to SB-1070!! 🙂

Ever since U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed – apparently prematurely – that the Justice Department would be bringing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial new immigration law, we’ve all been watching anxiously for the DOJ’s official filing.

That was almost a week ago, and Justice is still saying they are “reviewing” the possibility.

Well, this may be the reason for the delay:

Arizona Democrats, with tough re-election battles looming, have urged the Obama administration not to sue the state over its controversial immigration job.

The Hill reported yesterday that Democratic congressman Harry Mitchell has sent President Obama a “sharply worded letter” urging him to call off plans for Justice to sue his state. Two other House Dems, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick, are also calling for Obama to back off of SB 1070.

The problem, it seems, is that widespread support for the law among Arizonians has caused trouble for AZ Dems in tough reelection battles. Republican opponents have been turning up the heat, painting the Democrats as unsupportive of the law and soft on illegal immigration. In an effort to respond to this tactic, Dems have tried to avoid mentioning SB 1070 while talking up the need for immigration reform and increased border security. If Justice brings suit, the election rhetoric will necessarily be once again focused on the law itself.

Mitchell’s letter seems to strike a distinctly Republican tone:

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.” (Blue Wave news)

Strange bedfellows indeed!

***********

Notice in this next one, Border Security is  not only not mentioned it’s not even referenced:

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday marked what they called a “milestone” of 100 co-sponsors for a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Flanked by a group of immigrants from across the country, Democratic lawmakers said at a news conference that achieving 100 co-sponsors shows the immigration bill has the momentum necessary to become law.

The bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. House members are wary of facing voters in November who are split on what to do about immigration. Arizona’s controversial immigration law is adding considerable fuel to the fire.

The Arizona law requires law-enforcement officers, while stopping someone for another reason, to check immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It also makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas – who along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced the federal immigration bill last December – said the legislation is not an “amnesty bill” for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that it would not grant citizenship without punishment.

Rather, he said the bill would create a system that “is tough on enforcement, fair to taxpayers, and enforceable.”

The House bill would increase the number of green cards available and would create a program for illegal immigrants and their families giving them semi-legal status for six years if they learned English and U.S. civics.

The program also would require applicants to pay a fine of $500 and undergo a background check. The bill also would increase border security.

“Never have I seen the division that I see today and the hate that I see today,” Ortiz said in reference to the Arizona law, which barring any legal action will go into effect next month. “But people are beginning to understand the necessity of passing this important comprehensive immigration reform bill.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said in the past, however, that she would not bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor until the Senate has passed its own version.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, called the climate surrounding the immigration issue “hostile” and added that not passing a comprehensive immigration measure would be the “BP oil spill of not doing the right thing.”

The Democrats’ immigration proposal, Jackson Lee said, “is going to save this nation.” (AZ Daily Star)

Still believe any time a Democrat is talking about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that it’s not AMNESTY and has nothing at all to do with Border Security?

And still don’t believe Jon Kyl when he said that Obama was going to hold Border Security hostage to the Agenda?

I would hope not.

Freedom a Dinosaur?

Recommended Viewing: Gov. Christie of NJ gives a whining member of the teacher’s union a slap back. For once, someone who will stand toe to toe with liberals and push back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuri7p_9pm4&feature=player_embedded

********************

Now on to the Financial “reform” bill being finalized in the Congress.

It’s supposed to protect you and me from “too big to fail”.

It’s supposed to protect the consumer against the greedy capitalist pigs called Banks.

Naturally, these are Liberals, so it doesn’t really do that at all.

Just like Health Care reform wasn’t really about Health care. It was about granting the government the power to decide who lives and who dies. Period.

Well, here’s the next nail in your coffin.

But, we are from the government and we are here to help you!

The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury – a political appointee – to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency.  This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive.  It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

The legislation also requires that any business that extends credit, in any form, needs to clear the loan instrument in advance with the new consumer protection agency.  The backlog of pending applications will strangle consumer credit.

And the bill fails to do the one thing it must do — regulate derivatives and make them transparent.  Senator Chris Dodd (D Ct) bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years!  Senator Maria Cantwell (D Wash) protested the cop out with a no vote against the legislation.

These would be the financial fake money traders who caused the problem in the first place when all the bad debts from the subprime mortgage debacle-in-waiting started and eventually crashed.

Curiously, this was championed by the same guy who also championed the Subprime Mortgage mess, Now-retiring Sen. Chris Dodd.

Coincidence I think not.

So how did it pass?  Four Republicans sold out, that´s how!  Among the RINOs were, of course, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.  But, surprisingly, Scott Brown (R Mass), the newly elected Massachusetts Miracle defected as did the normally stalwart Chuck Grassley (R Iowa).

Now the federal government has effectively taken over about one third of our national economy by passing Obamacare and regulatory reform in almost the same breath.
But that is only part of the story. The bill gives the secretary of the treasury (appointed by the president) powers that are a dictator’s dream come true. He would have the power to seize any bank or financial institution if, in his opinion, it is in danger of insolvency. One can imagine the threats coming from the White House to those banks who failed to make campaign contributions or endorse the presidential agenda.

Then there are the implications for our individual lives. The bill, as we explained in a previous story, would give the feds the right to peer into our bank accounts . . . yours and mine. But also the banks would have to get permission from the government to make individual loans. This is not merely a bank getting general approval to make loans. It is banks going to the government for approval of each and every individual loan.

It might look like this. John Smith goes to First Bank of Elm Street and asks for a car loan. The bank then sends an application to the federal government asking for permission to loan Mr. Smith the money. The feds look at Mr. Smith’s bank statement and find that he contributed money to the president’s political opponent last election. Mr. Smith can forget about his car loan . . . or home loan . . . or financing a new pair of socks.

With possible implications also, according to Glenn Beck, that it will be the “fault” of the lender if the person who they loan the money to defaults.

So imagine this: Your a Bank. If you loan Mr. Smith money, for say a house, and he defaults. He can go to the Consumer advocacy bureaucrats and complain that his rate was too high or whatever and the government can just say,” Bank, you were too greedy” and that’s that.

Now if you were a bank, would you loan any Mr. Smith’s any money?

And the economy comes to a grinding halt.

But at least your safe from greedy capitalist pigs!!

The Financial Stability Oversight Council will be created and identify non-bank financial companies that “may pose risks to the financial stability of the United States in the event of their material financial distress or failure”

So if the government “deems” you too big a risk they can come in and break up your company, fire anyone they like and do what they deem necessary to “protect” you from these greedy capitalist pigs! 😦

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will be created — for you. They’ll be able to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. And the bill mandates any financial institution that takes deposits, keep a record of the number and amount of those deposits and that customer addresses be “geo-coded for the collection of data regarding the census tracts of the residences or business locations of customers.” Geo-coded? Are they linking deposits to the Census Bureau?

They claim to be protecting you from “unfair and deceptive” practices. Unfair and deceptive are two words that are defined and often used in our laws, but there is another word they put in the bill: “abusive.” What does that even mean? No one really knows because it has not been used in this context before. Will its definition be up to the new super regulator who will be in charge of the agency? What is abusive? What if someone defaults on their loan or their house is foreclosed upon and they say “the interest rate is too high” or “I did not understand adjustable rate would adjust up” or “I am old, you should’ve explained it to me.”

Will the regulator decide the lender was abusive? It puts the pressure on the lender to not only offer full disclosure, but take full responsibility. Don’t worry if you can’t pay your loan, blame it on the abusive greedy bank.

Glenn Beck continues…

And here’s what is coming in the House’s financial bill:

First and foremost, it does nothing to address the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two helped create the housing mess and then needed a $125 billion bailout, which they haven’t even scratched the surface on a payback.

It creates a special protected class of “too big to fail” firms. In section 113, a “Financial Stability Oversight Council” is established, which will choose the firms deemed too big to fail. Hmm, can you think of any other massive financial institutions that don’t care if they fail because they know they will be bailed out by the government? Fannie and Freddie. So not only is this bill not doing anything to stop Fannie and Freddie, as they continue to lose hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, this bill will create more of them.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The secretary of the treasury can order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds “in danger of default.” Again, a bureaucrat arbitrarily getting to make the distinction to just take over a financial firm whenever they feel like it. And, once the decision is approved, it’s nearly impossible to reverse.

This Financial Stability Oversight Council, they’ve got nine regulatory authorities out there and this expands the reach outside of just financial firms. They can declare if a non-bank financial firm (insurance, finance companies, hedge funds) are “in trouble.” And guess what? They can turn it over to the treasury for regulation. Again, this distinction is completely arbitrary and comes from bureaucrats.

Opens a line of credit to the treasury for additional government funding. Guess who’s irrelevant? You are, Congress! No more begging those pesky politicians for billions of dollars, like with TARP. No, we’ll just skip that and tap the ATM.

Regulators can guarantee the debt of solvent banks as well. If there is a ‘liquidity crisis’ …

The bill creates a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” They just want to “protect” consumers. Uh-huh. This bureau will have broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers.

It’s supposed to help, but it will only reduce choices and likely make credit more expensive and harder to get. It also allows them to track all of your financial transactions, just to “protect you.”

Non-financial firms would be subject to financial regulations. Listen to how broad this is: Section 102 defines a “non-bank financial company” as a company “substantially engaged in activities… that are financial in nature.” Aren’t all companies financial in nature? Sure, bakeries are making cupcakes and bread, but isn’t that financial in nature?

And they’re making sure this bill is jammed down America’s throat by, I’m not kidding, July 4th.

So here is the Frankendodd monster giving us our independence by chaining our children and our freedoms by snooping through our credit cards.

This fits the progressive agenda to a T: Power and control. These guys are power hungry. This financial bill is the biggest reform since FDR. We’re making the same mistakes we make in the 1930s, except the first time we made these mistakes, the American people didn’t know what progressives were really about and there was no global structure in place. When FDR died in office, we could still reverse many of the things he tried to do. But this time, we won’t be able to, because your representatives won’t have any control.

Again: “Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.”

Again, I ask you to call your representative at the IMF and complain if you don’t like that fact that America spent $50 billion in tax money to bail out Greece. Call your representative at the U.N. and say you won’t vote for him next time. Contact the World Bank and let them know that you’ll close your bank account with them if you have to.

This is why all of this matters: You have no representation. It’s just the way the world is now. It’s a global community.

Another thing FDR did not have, but Woodrow Wilson did, was Cass Sunstein.

He’s the regulatory czar, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He controls everything — he nudges you. He never tells you what to do — he nudges you. Remember “The Truman show”? Sunstein is the director up there in the control room. You still have his “freedoms.” Sunstein is just using a lot of “choice architecture” around you.

Cass Sunstein has wanted that job in the control room his whole life — his whole life! In 2008, on the campaign trail, he went on a date with his soon to be wife, Samantha Power. She asked him what his dream job was. She said, “I expected him to say he dreamed of playing for the Red Sox… his eyes got real big and he said, ‘Ooh! OIRA!'”

Most people will say what’s the big deal with that job? Here’s a guy who’s wanted this job. What kind of geek wants this job? Well, any geek who knows history knows that’s one of the most powerful jobs in the world. You are looking at the power of the Fed and more.

Oh, by the way, if this financial regulation bill passes, how much control does government have over the economy? Twenty percent? Forty-eight percent? No — 60 percent.

We are teetering on the brink of totalitarianism in the land of the free. Folks, write your congressmen while there is still time.

But at least the government is looking out for you! 😦

*******

An analysis of government data by USA Today found that “paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year.”

That’s only part of this sad story: “At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.”

If the share of private-sector pay is shrinking, income from government must necessarily be growing. Sure enough, during the first quarter, the federal government added 81,000 jobs while the private sector lost 4.71 million.

President Obama wants more. He’s asked federal agencies to accelerate and streamline hiring of federal workers at a time when laying off bureaucrats would be the far better course.

Even before Obama began to push federal hiring, working for Washington was a lucrative career choice. In 2008, the typical federal worker took home on average $67,691 in salary compared with $60,046 for the private sector.

During the first 18 months of the recession, USA Today reported in December, “Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.”

Government workers have also avoided the job losses we’ve seen in the private sector. Their unemployment rate from 2007 to 2010 has been 3%; the rate across private industry has been 7.9%.

************

And finally, this liberal ditty. Now keep in mind the Liberals have no problem with a 13-story Islamic mosque being built practically across the street from ground zero by a radical muslim cleric…

But they do object to…The American Flag!!

(But don’t expect the Ministry of truth to tell you this one.) 😦

An Army veteran in Wisconsin will be allowed to display an American flag until Memorial Day, but the symbol honoring his service in Iraq and Kosovo must come down next Tuesday, his wife told FoxNews.com.

Dawn Price, 27, of Oshkosh, Wis., said she received a call from officials at Midwest Realty Management early Wednesday indicating that she and her husband, Charlie, would be allowed to continue flying the American flag they’ve had in their window for months through the holiday weekend. The couple had previously been told they had to remove the flag by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials.

“It’s basically an extension so we can fly the flag on Memorial Day,” Price told FoxNews.com. “It does need to come down after that.”

Charlie Price, 28, served tours of duty as a combat engineer in Iraq and Kosovo, his wife said. To honor his eight years of service, she began decorating their apartment during Veterans Day in November. An American flag topped off the display, she said.

“I knew it made Charlie really proud to see that,” she said. “And this isn’t something new. This has been up for quite some time now.”

Veterans’ groups were furious at the realtors’ refusal to allow the flag to fly.

“As a veteran, it sickens me that the Dawn and Charlie Price’s building management company would imply that the American flag could be construed as offensive by their residents,” said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AmVets.

“We’re talking about our most revered national symbol. This is insulting to anyone who has defended our flag honorably, like Charlie Price.”

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no “condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association” may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

“This has been eating at us since Friday,” she said. ‘The best way to fight this isn’t getting an eviction and going after these people in court. That’s just going to cost us a lot of time, energy and money.”

Instead, Dawn Price said she either intends to place a curtain between the flag and the apartment window to block it from onlookers or will move it to a rear balcony come next week.

“We don’t want to fight the eviction,” she said. “We know we’d lose.”

Officials at Midwest Realty Management, which manages Brookside Apartments, where the Prices live, did not return several messages seeking comment. In a statement to the Oshkosh Northwestern, company officials said the policy was established to provide a consistent living environment for all residents.

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

Despite the brief reprieve, Dawn Price said her husband is disappointed by the flag flap.

“He actually sees it as a slap in the face to his service,” she said. “He’s pretty upset about it, especially right around Memorial Day.”(FOX)

*******

But the good news, if there is such a thing these days, there’s a Tea Party in San Francisco!!

No, the world did not end because of this fundamental contradiction.

But great “Unifier” can’t even win in San Francisco these days.

So there is hope.

Hope FOR Change.

Or else, in my lifetime, it will all go the way of the dinosaurs….

The Pot is Black

Remember the old saying, “That’s like the pot calling the kettle black”?

Well, you have outraged and falsely sanctimonious Democrats demagoging about the evils of Wall Street and BP (British Petroleum) but yet they are the one with their hands in the cookie jar.

Subprime Scandal: Democrats blame “greedy” Wall Street for the financial crisis, but Democratic operatives lined their own pockets throughout the mess.

Take Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd. The Senate Banking Committee chairman recently blew a gasket on the Senate floor over GOP opposition to his tougher financial regulations.

“You have to ask yourself: ‘Who benefits if this bill to rein in Wall Street or large financial institutions is strangled by a filibuster?'” he said. “Certainly no one can make the case that the American family would benefit. These families have seen millions of jobs lost, trillions in savings wiped out, because of the greedy few on Wall Street who gambled with money that didn’t even belong to them.”

But Dodd was one of the power brokers who played fast and loose with taxpayer-backed money at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As late as July 2008, as the congressionally chartered mortgage giants buckled under the weight of HUD-mandated subprime loans, the banking panel chief insisted they were “viable, strong institutions.” Dodd asserted that there was no need to rein in their risky affordable-lending programs.

By suspending oversight, Dodd helped gamble away more than $400 billion — the current estimate of how much it will cost the Treasury to bail out Fannie and Freddie.

At the same time, Dodd personally took advantage of the easy credit scam that he and his affordable-housing cronies fostered. He received not one, but two sweetheart mortgages from subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which at the time was the darling of the affordable-housing movement. Points were shaved from the loans, and Dodd saved thousands of dollars.

Fannie CEO Franklin Raines also got special treatment from Countrywide, which became Fannie’s top client. Democrat Raines, who griped that homeownership was “unevenly distributed in society,” even held it up as the model for affordable lending.

After stepping down as White House budget director, Clinton installed him at the helm of Fannie where he proceeded to cook the books and pocket huge bonuses. By the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud, Raines had looted Fannie for nearly $100 million in compensation. Other Clinton cronies padded their pockets with sums that make some Wall Street CEOs look like pikers.

Raines is now an informal housing adviser to President Obama. Obama maintains that “fat cat bankers” caused the mortgage meltdown. But it was HUD that encouraged Fannie and Freddie to take “reckless risks” to satisfy affirmative-lending quotas. And Democrats on the Hill looked the other way.

Dodd and others abdicated their oversight duties. In effect, they gave the mortgage giants a blank check and told them to make it out to uncreditworthy minority and low-income homebuyers, who could not afford to repay loans.

As long as Fannie and Freddie kept underwriting politically correct mortgages, Democrats turned a blind eye to the mounting risk. And they also ignored the book-cooking and looting going on there.

In turn, Fannie and Freddie paid them protection money in the form of generous political donations. In fact, Dodd and Obama were among the top recipients of their largesse in the Senate.

Then there is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an old Chicago crony of Obama. In 2000, after serving as a top White House aide, President Clinton appointed Emanuel to the Freddie Mac board, where he raked in a cool $320,000 in compensation.

Following his stint there, Emanuel hauled in millions of dollars working for a Chicago investment firm that backed — you guessed it — subprime mortgage lending firms.

Before demonizing greedy bankers on Wall Street, Democrats in Washington ought to take a long, hard look in the mirror. (IBD)

BP: Washington (CNN) — As petroleum giant BP comes under congressional scrutiny as its ruptured oil rig pumps thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, its political contributions are being scrutinized, too.

The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

When questioned about the donations Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a point of noting that the money came from employees and not the company itself.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt added that Obama wasn’t tied to big oil companies.

“This claim lacks one thing: credibility,” LaBolt said in a statement. “President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign. He raised $750 million from nearly 4 million Americans. And since he became President, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”

Where’s my barf bag?

He got it all from the little people…Bovine Fecal Matter!

IMMIGRATION:

The Al Sharpton road show was here over the last few days. It may still be here, but I doubt it.

His hit-and-run included such gems as:  “We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal in Everybody’s House’ “

Now you wouldn’t call that socialism now would you?

Because, then you’d be a Racist….and you don’t want to be that now do you…. 😦

Then there was this little ditty from the liberal epicenter of the San Francisco Bay Area:

Freedom of expression or cultural disrespect on Cinco de Mayo?

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal’s office.

“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts “incendiary” that would lead to fights on campus.

“They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended,” Dominic Maciel, Galli’s friend, said.

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they’re angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, “total nonsense.”

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel’s mom, said. “All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They’re expressing their individuality.”

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, “fat chance.”

“I’m not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong,” Galli said. “I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I’m an American and I’m proud to be an American.”

The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district released a statement saying it does not agree with how Live Oak High School administrators handled this incident.

The boys will not be suspended and they were told they can go back to school Thursday. They may even wear their red, white, and blue colors again, but this time, the day after Cinco de Mayo, there will be no controversy.

Ah, the politically correct.

So what’s next, are we going to be observing all Mexican and Latino holidays so as not to offend them?

After all, an American Flag (on an Old Navy shirt) is tantamount to racism you know…

Why is Obama vilifying FOX News? Why does Harry Reid push an immigration bill he knows can’t pass? Why won’t Schumer compromise on regulatory reform and why does he try to hang Goldman Sachs around the GOP? Why did Bill Clinton blame conservatives who oppose big government for the Oklahoma City bombing?

All share one motivation: To increase their base’s turnout in the off year elections of 2010. Going after FOX News stimulates a feeling of victimization on the left. The immigration bill and the new Arizona law catalyzes a Latino turnout. Goldman Sachs enrages liberal anti-Wall Street populists. By characterizing the Tea Party activists as dangerous, liberals are aroused to vote in November.

There are two way to win any election: energize the base or appeal to the center. Obama is, predictably, choosing the former, deliberately pushing policies that drive Independents into Republican arms as the price for generating passion on the part of his supporters. (Dick Morris)

So the great “unifier” is dividing people in order to try and save his party.

So the party that decries “fear tactics” is slopping it on like there’s no tomorrow.

And they are the victims.

And Me,  I’m still a racist…. 🙂

The Democrat Convenience Store

Alinsky Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Obama and The Democrats want to control the Financial Sector next. Or at the very least, scare them or scar them into compliance.

So the Next great Boogeyman has emerged from the Democrats.

First (and still champ) was George W. Bush.

Then it Halliburton.

Then it was The Banks.

Then it was the Insurance Industry.

Now it’s Wall Street.

Specifically Goldman Sachs.

Obama and The Democrats have their target.

But they also have some real problems.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, is demanding a slew of documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”

Issa’s letter, addressed to SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro and signed by eight other House Republicans, asks whether the commission had any contact about the case, prior to its public release, with White House aides, Democratic Party committee officials, or members of Congress or their staff.

“[W]e are concerned that politics have unduly influenced the decision and timing of the commission’s controversial enforcement action against Goldman,” Issa writes.

Issa implied that the timing was a bit too convenient, saying President Barack Obama’s push on Wall Street reform “neatly coincided with the commission’s announcement of the suit.”

And if that wasn’t enough, Obama took nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, and a former White Aide is now a lawyer for Goldman Sachs!

(Former White House counsel Greg Craig has just signed on as an institutional Sherpa for Goldman Sachs, the iconic financial firm facing fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.)

“The Goldman litigation … has been widely cited by Democrats in support of the financial regulatory legislation currently before the United States Senate,” Issa writes. “The American people have a right to know whether the commission, or any of its officers or employees, may have violated federal law by using the resources of an independent regulatory agency to promote a partisan political agenda.

…“[T]he events of the past five days have fueled legitimate suspicion on the part of the American people that the commission has attempted to assist the White House, the Democratic Party, and Congressional Democrats by timing the suit to coincide with the Senate’s consideration of financial regulatory legislation, or by providing Democrats with advance notice.”

The Democrats would never stoop to that level of intimidation and misuse of government power, now would they…..

In fact, the aggressive campaign by Democrats in support of the legislation neatly coincided with the Commission’s announcement of the suit. For example:

–The Commission approved the Goldman suit in a vote that spit along party lines – a rare occurrence for approvals of enforcement litigation.

–Before the Commission had released its announcement, the New York Times published on its website a story describing the suit.

–Less than half an hour after the Times story’s publication, Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America and now a project of the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), sent millions of supporters an e-mail message from President Obama urging support for “Wall Street Reform.”

–Within hours, the Democratic National Committee had purchased AdWords advertising from Google, Inc. The DNC’s Google campaign fundraising advertisement, headed “Fight Wall Street Greed,” appeared whenever a user ran a Google search for the phrase “Goldman Sachs SEC.” It read, “Help Pres. Obama Reform Wall Street and Create Jobs. Families First!” and included a link to http://www.BarackObama.com, the website of Organizing for America.

–Democrats in Congress and the Administration have heralded the Commission’s suit against Goldman as a welcome boost to their case for the legislation.

–Members of the media have already begun to question the timing of the Commission’s suit and the actions of the Democratic National Committee.

As supported by the Commission’s canons of ethics, and as frequently reiterated by you and other Commissioners, the unqualified independence of financial regulators is crucial to the health of the financial system and the U.S. economy. For this reason, doubts about whether the Commission has scrupulously guarded its independence from the Administration’s partisan political agenda and concerted efforts to manipulate Congressional action are very serious, and should be addressed with full transparency.

Transparency, oooh there’s that word again… 🙂

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promising a climactic clash with Wall Street, but there’s a complication in their battle plan: The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit. (or the Media for that matter)

Former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt lobbies for Goldman Sachs, Visa and the coal industry. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle — Obama’s first choice to head Health and Human Services — is an adviser for a lobbying firm that represents Charles Schwab, Comcast, Lockheed Martin, Verizon and a host of other corporate interests.

Attorney General Eric Holder once lobbied for Global Crossing — sometimes described as the Democratic Enron — and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made eight figures in a little more than two years as the Chicago-based managing director at Wasserstein Perella & Co. between jobs as a senior aide in President Bill Clinton’s White House and as the congressman representing Illinois’s 5th District.

And the Democrats rode to their majorities in the House and the Senate on a wave of cash Emanuel and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer helped them raise from Wall Street. Earlier this month, a hedge fund manager at the center of the Goldman Sachs fraud case held a fundraiser for Schumer in New York. (Politico)

Whoops!

Let’s Make sure the Ministry of Truth Media buries that!!

Goldman Sachs and its employees and family members gave $5.9 million to candidates in the 2007-2008 election cycle, the Washington-based center’s data shows. Three-quarters of that went to Democrats, the non-partisan group said. (Bloomberg)

The SEC filed a civil suit on April 16 alleging the firm failed to tell investors in a 2007 collateralized debt obligation that hedge fund Paulson & Co., which planned to bet against the CDO, helped select the underlying assets.

Goldman Sachs has denied the SEC’s accusations and Greg Palm, co-general counsel, told analysts on a conference call today that the firm didn’t intentionally mislead anyone.

Wall Street provided three of Obama’s seven biggest sources of contributors for his presidential bid. In 2007 and 2008, Goldman Sachs employees and family members gave him $994,795, Citigroup Inc. $701,290, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. $695,132.

The only friends of  Democrats are friends of convenience.

“Every day we don’t act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place, with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities,” President Obama says. “And if we don’t change what led to the crisis, we’ll doom ourselves to repeat it.”(IBD)

Sound Familiar??

And rest assured, you will hear it over and over…

It’s convenient.

The Next Big Stick

As difficult as it was, passing the health care bill is only “a critical first step” in overhauling the system so that it “works for all Americans,” President Obama told NBC’s Today show.”It is not going to be the only thing,” Obama told Matt Lauer. “We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.”

Further reduce??

Reduce???

What universe is he living in?

Well, that’s done. So it’s on to the next big stick.

Several companies have come out with their  100’s of millions in new cost estimates for ObamaCare.

The Democrats are mad about it.

And they want someone to pay politically for it, just not them.

So it’s time to take some CEO’s to the woodshed.

Rep. Henry Waxman vowed to haul CEOs into hearings after they revealed just how much ObamaCare will cost their firms. It’s an absurd war on bookkeeping, from a Congress desperate to avoid heat for this fiasco.

In the wake of President Obama’s presidential signature on the gargantuan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last Thursday, big companies have crunched their numbers and come up with an ugly picture.

In legally mandated filings, AT&T reported that ObamaCare will cost it $1 billion. Deere & Co. reported $150 million in new costs. Caterpillar must cough up $100 million. 3M must pay another $90 million. AK Steel gets to fork over $31 million. Valero Energy will pay $30 million. There’ll be more as other companies report anticipated costs to fulfill their requirements to inform shareholders. What it shows is a huge wave of costs rolling over the private sector to pay for this bill.

It’s the real cost of ObamaCare, a bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had touted daily as “paid for” in her pitch for Congressional votes.

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it’s paid for because everything is paid for. The question is by whom.

The coming costs are the result of a little-scrutinized ObamaCare provision ending a tax credit for prescription drugs. The credit had been there to encourage firms to carry those costs for retirees.

As a result of ObamaCare’s changes, companies now can either pay for those costs — and lay off workers, hold off expansion or move abroad — or scrap their prescription drug programs altogether, dumping their retirees onto the federal government.

Either way, the costs are “paid for” — but they’ve also just skyrocketed, thanks to ObamaCare.

Instead of admitting the economic reality voters and companies have been warning Congress about, and maybe offering to read the bill next time, Waxman seeks to blame the very businesses the Democrats have just victimized.

It’s a sorry spectacle because Congress paid no attention at all to anyone who raised a yellow flag about how badly the cost-shifting would hit the private sector.

The Chamber of Commerce’s assessments of the impact on companies were dismissed in favor of MoveOn.org’s hysterical “analysis” howling for socialized health care. And the bill passed.

Now it’s time to pay the piper, and Waxman doesn’t want to pay.

He has decided to haul the executives into yet another round of star chamber hearings to explain just why two and two make four.

This is an implied threat to companies either to cook their books or face legal or political sanctions for embarrassing Congress by revealing the true impact of its health care bill on the private sector.

It has its place with what Stalin did in Soviet Russia, denouncing farmers as hoarders after setting artificially low prices for crops, and what Hugo Chavez is doing today in Venezuela, dictating prices on raw goods and limiting access to money while penalizing companies for passing on those costs to customers.

If Waxman gets away with this, it will be just as corrosive on the private sector here. It’s only happening because companies operating in market conditions dared to embarrass Congress with reality.(IBD)

Add to this the Chris Dodd bill on Financial Reform where the Treasury Secretary will have the power to seize a business if he believes it will fail.

Believes.

The bill would establish a liquidation fund financed by the industry and authorize the appointment of FDIC as receiver for insolvent companies, with SIPC acting as trustee for broker-dealers. All that sounds reasonable. You don’t notice the danger until you’re deep into the 1,336 page bill.

The government is to take over not only defaulting financial companies but those “in danger of default”. Five conditions are listed to define default and in-danger-of-default. Two are straightforward—the company will be filing for bankruptcy shortly or its board or shareholders agree to a government takeover.

The other three conditions allow the government to take over even when a company is not filing for bankruptcy and its board/shareholders do not consent. What it means is that the secretary of the Treasury can decide that a company is about to collapse even if it does not look that way to other people.

So you want to embarrass the President with your economic forecasts do you, Mr CEO?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

So you want to give money to the GOP to defeat us in November or 2012?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

When you operate on  “the end Justifies the means” that the Democrats are, and they got the drug high from winning the Health Care battle why wouldn’t they go there?

They absolutely would.

It’s the Chicago Way.

And the Mafia.

And the Soviets.

And Hugo Chavez.

And Castro.

So why wouldn’t they.

Moreover, consider that if there is any public suspicion of what’s going on, the company is dead. Once the Treasury decides a company is doing down, this decision will become self-fulfilling. That company will go down. The way the bill is written, it vastly expands government power to make arbitrary choices—like liquidate bank x but let bank y stand. A preview of this happened in 2008, when the Treasury and Fed decided to backstop Bear Stearns but not Lehman Brothers.

Perish the thought, but suppose a secretary of the Treasury has a crony who really wants to buy an investment bank on the cheap—and will provide some future quid pro quo. Pick a time when equities are down and you could make a case that a financial company is wobbly. Voila, it gets liquidated in a fire sale.

Maybe this sounds far fetched—a politician would not do something just for his own interest, would he?(CSM)

To allow the government to make a determination of what could or might happen is to create a whole new arena for political corruption.

But “The end justifies the means”.

The end being, of course, absolute power corrupting absolutely.

And Free Speech? Well,  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY…and you wouldn’t want to say anything bad about Big Brother now would you…